Every one of the defendants here, if he has been in the Ministry, would be able to testify whether that was my handwriting or not.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the exhibit number on that again?
DR. SCHILF: Exhibit 109, Your Honor. 109; 653 PS. But may I remark it is a later sheet. The Prosecution submitted Exhibit 109 at two different times in two parts.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Now, HerrKlemm, I want to ask you -
A I want to make an additional explanation. The figure "4" means Department 4. "R-V" means "Rundverfuegung", circular order, with the addition that such cases are to be submitted to me, that,is, Thierack, and are to be submitted not for quashing but for the purpose of examining the question of quashing if they wore pending. Thus a quashing was not considered from the very beginning.
Q Did this instruction issued by Thierack have any possibility of inciting the population to lynch allied fliers, or how did you look at it at the time?
AAfter the Minister had issued this instruction to Division 4 and thus had arrogated the decision in regard to this to himself, I no longer had a possibility to undertake anything in the matter. This circular order was issued with the stamp "secret" on it if it was sent out at all, and I don't know that. And one cannot talk about inciting the population for the reason that the population did not hoar about it at all. However, after Bormann had informed the Party in this manner and after Himmler had issued his instructions to the police, it was the duty of Thierack to take some measures in regard to the prosecutions in the country. I have already stated that the Administration of Justice was unwilling and Thierack was unwilling, too, to grant freedom from prosecution without any conditions like that. Thus if the Administration of Justice wanted to carry out a trial, the Minister had to assert his authority and to protect the local prosecutors against any elements of the Party or the police who would like to prevent such a penal prosecution.
If a proceeding was to be quashed, however, only the minister himself could do that, because of the regulations by law. What were the consequences of this circular order in the Administration of Justice, I can no longer remember. It may be one or two very special cases were quashed. I do not know whether there were more such cases.
Q You said that the Administration of Justice and Thierack, too, turned against Borman's methods. Can you cite examples for this?
A The Party did not only require that those people should not be punished who participated in lynchings but, on the contrary, it wanted to have severely punished those people who treated fliers who had been shot down in a humane manner; and they wanted to have them punished with the aid cf the regulations regarding the forbidden contact with prisoners of war. We did not concur with either of those measures. In a case which took place in Magdeburg, the Party attempted to achieve the most severe punishment of a couple which had given feud to an enemy flier who had been shot down and who had received a piece of candy from him. This was stopped. We had received a report according to which a couple was arrested because they had allowed an Allied flier who had been shot down into their apartment. The Canadian -I believe he was a Canadian flier -- had been taken prisoner during the air raid, that is, before the all-clear signal, by a civilian, and the civilian took him into his apartment. In this apartment the flier received something to drink and the Canadian offered the wife a piece of candy. At first the woman refused it. When he offered it the second time, however, she accepted it. She then put the piece of candy away and said, "That is for the children."The Party had achieved it with the local Administration of Justice that the married couple was arrested and that an indictment would be filed for illicit contact with prisoners of war in a very serious case. When I heard about this report -- I shall shorten this description somewhat -- I reported this case very emphatically to Dr. Thierack, and during the very same night he called up the chief public prosecutor in Magdeburg and instructed him to have the married couple released immediately the next morning.
Q Herr Klemm, that is sufficient. I shall submit an affidavit about this incident. I only want to ask you now, those were cases in which Germans were prosecuted because they were supposed to have treated Allied prisoners of war too leniently. Can you also cite the opposite cases where the Reich Administration of Justice prosecuted Germans who participated in lynchings?
AAround the turn of the year 1944-1945 in Krannenburg, that is the district of the District Court of Appeals, Duesseldorf, the following case occurred. An SA leader had, during the course of the air war, lost three very close relatives of his due to bombing. One noon he passed the town hall in Kranenburg. There was a guard standing, and with him he had two captured paratroopers. This SA leader went over to him and shot the two captured paratroopers. We prosecuted that case and even though the police as well as the Party offices offered considerable resistance, these discussions were advanced energetically. I do not know the final outcome, because later on due to the events of the war this territory was occupied by the Allied troops.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, may I say briefly I have already the approval of the Court to submit these files of the General Public Prosecutor of Duesseldorf. I do not have them here as yet. When I receive them I shall then submit them in evidence.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q HerrKlemm, briefly in regard to Exhibit 110, which you have already mentioned, terror-fliers, that is how it is called, secret military matter. Did you find out anything about that?
A These are Wehrmacht files and a correspondence with the Foreign Office, and the problem was to not lot terror fliers obtain the status of prisoners of war.
Q Let me interrupt you; you do not have to discuss it. Did you find about the matter at the time?
A The Administration of Justice neither took part in this case nor did we know anything about it.
Q The prosecution, furthermore, submitted Exhibit 417, that is document 1676-PS, in document Book 1-A. It is an article which appeared in the Voelkischer Beobachter on the 28th and 29th of May 1944. The prosecution asserts that from this article of Goebbels' in the German press, one can read an incitement of the population to administer lynch justice. Did you find out about this article at the time?
A I did not have knowledge of this article at the time. It was not the cause for Thierack's circular letter, which was issued for quite different reasons; as I just described, it was issued for legal considerations. Moreover, according to the affidavit in Exhibit 440, the issuance of this circular letter must have occured at a time which shows that it could have had no connection with this article in the newspaper.
Q With that we can conclude this chapter. Exhibit 440, which we mentioned, is NG-1306, and it is an document boo I Supplement.
Mr. Klemm, we shall now discuss the subject of Judges' Letters and also the so-called Guidance Letters, Lenkungsbriefe. You know that the prosecution submitted a very extensive amount of evidence in regard to this subject.
First I want to ask you about the Judge's Letters. In what manner did you participate in these Judges' Letters, Richterbriefe?
DR. SCHILF: For the information of the Tribunal, I would like to cite the documents that are concerned with this question. They are Exhibits 81 through 86, 90, and 94 to 96 inclusive. The NG numbersare given on the list which I have submitted. Since the documents do not have to be discussed individually, I believe it is sufficient to refer to exhibit number.
Q (Continuing) Please answer my question, Mr. Klemm A The Judges' Letters had already been issued for more than a year at the time when I became Undersecretary.
I cannot say anything about the history of their origin. My participation was limited to having a carbon copy of the finished Judges' Letters submitted to me in draft form. Thierack was given a copy at the same time. When looking it over, I had to start from the point of view of not only the selection of the cases which had to be treated and the subjects, but also of the fundamental opinion of Thierack, which had already been laid down by him in advance. Technical changes would have been of little avail, since Thierack looked at these drafts word for word and changed them considerably. He regarded the Judges' Letter as his own exclusive province.
Moreover, of the letters which the prosecution has submitted here, I myself participated only in the Judges' Letter, Exhibit, 86. All of the other letters date from the time prior to which I was Undersecretary.
Q The prosecution regards the judges' letters, from the point of view of their contents as well as their form, as an illegal pressure exercised on judges and jurisdiction at that time. It asserts that it was a serious intervention into the independence of judges. When you were concerned with the judges' letters, did you consider that effect? Did you fear it, or did you support it, or did you see those matters from a different point of view than the prosecution asserts here?
A I wish to say the following about that. The thought never occured to me that the impression could be created at all which the prosecution today raises as a charge. The sentences were incorporated into the judges' letters anonymously, that is to say, without stating the name of the court, without stating the name of the condemned person or even the name of the judge, or the time.
Through that it was intended to be emphasized, especially by this means, that the question of general interest, and that not the individual case was at stake, nor the praise or the blame of a judge. By the manner in which these matters were incorporated into the judges' letters, in particular, the judge could not feel himself being addressed directly, as usually occurs in legal journals, in which these sentences are published in the legal press with the full naming of the court, the file number and the date, and then there usually follows the discussions of the opinion.
That the judges' Letters were confidential was not due to the fact that they had to be afraid of showing themselves in public or that something that was incorrect was supposed to be covered up. The reason was rather the following; the truthful presentation of the case. And they were not hypothetical cases reported in the Judges' Letters, but those which had actually occured. Thus, I am saying that the truthful presentation of a case could not always keep the opinions anonymous, but it was intended to avoid and that was in favor of the person who was condemned, not again be exposed to the public. However, over and above that, the showing to the public of a broad, general criticism by one authority of the Administration of Justice of another was to be prevented.
The National Socialist press, in its total character, was exclusively hostile to the Administration of Justice, and the Administration of Justice in particular had to suffer the most unbelievable attacks in the Nazi press. The press would have jumped at these Judges' Letters in order to criticize the Administration of Justice, and would have said, "The offices of the Administration of Justice themselves state how wrong the attitude of the Administration of Justice is." Above all, however, it was intended to be avoided that the Judges' Letters would be interpreted in an entirely wrong direction -- that is, through the general public--in clemency pleas, that in a false lay comparison, by referring to Judges' Letters, a claim for a pardon would be raised.
In addition to that, the Judges' Letters were intended to be the basis for a friendly discussion between the highest authorities of the Administration of Justice and the individual judge. Judges and prosecutors were requested expressly -- by the judges'letters themselves, --to address requests in regard to the Judges' Letters directly to the Minister of Justice, and they were told that they were not forced to go through channels. Every judge and prosecutor was supposed to be a direct collaborator in these Judges' Letters, and in this direct way letters reached the Ministry of Justice.
Q. You stated that you participated only in the writing of one Judges' Letter in your capacity as Undersecretary,actually, and you cited Exhibit 86, which is NG-321, in Document Book I-D. All of document book I-D is concerned with Judges' Letters. Would you tell the Tribunal briefly to what extent you participated in this Judges' Letter, that is, the one of 1 March to 1 April 1944, No. 17?
A. I shall make a brief statement; otherwise I would just have to quote what is in the document. I only want to refer to individual passages, that is page 104 to 106, where a Special. Court had pronounced a death sentence. The nullity plea was made and an acquittal resulted. I refer especially to pages 139 to 141 and the criticism which was made there. Furthermore, I wish to refer to the case on pages 108 and 109, which was also a death sentence, the reopening of the case, and the result, which was three years in a penitentiary. The criticism in regard to this opinion is on page 141. The basic statements concerning plundering, on pages 134 and 139 are especially interesting, On page 8 in this Judges'Letter, it is stated that the death sentence was not necessary. Then, statements in regard to case 13 on page 147, there it is stated that neither the death sentence nor a term in a penitentiary were appropriate. In case No. 23 there are especially significant statements about plundering by foreigners among themselves.
Then there is case No. 24, and likewise cases 6, 7, 8 and 23, all of which discuss opinions in which the sentence which was pronounced against a foreigner was too high. Case No. 26, on page 155, contains statements about the rejection of the false application of analogy.
This judges' letter, in particular, demonstrates that the point was not to make jurisdiction more severe but to bring about a just jurisdiction.
Q. We can now interrupt the subject of the judges' letters. May I inform the Tribunal I intend to submit more evidence in my document book in regard to this subject. Now we come to two so-called guidance letters which bear your name. That is Exhibit 178, NG-676, in Document Book III-E, and are called Guidance letters, Exhibit 474, NG-627, in Document III-A Supplement Volume. These letters concern information issued by the Reich Minister of Justice which you signed as Thierack's deputy. Witness, the first went to the President of the District Court of Appeals in Stuttgart. That is Exhibit 178. The second one is to the President of the District Court of Appeals in Hanburg. That is Exhibit 474. The contents of these documents show that undermining of military strength was the subject. The sentences by these courts of Stuttgart and Hamburg were criticized as being too lenient by the Minister--that is, by you--because they were signed by you as deputy. Please describe to the Tribunal how these two letters came about.
A. Undermining of military strength was regarded as particularly dangerous. The reason for it was the experiences which Germany had made in 1918 when the German armies were far in enemy territory and through the failure at home, sufferable peace was prevented. Therefore undermining of military strength was already in 1939 introduced by law as a subject for penalty. Care was to be taken that the will for tenacity and the inner strength and hope and faith in a sufferable end of the war would be maintained. In view of the successes which the German Wehrmacht had the first years of this war and also during the middle of the war, we hardly heard anything about reverses at that time with the exception of Stalingrad. Thus this crime never occurred. Only toward the end of the war when the military situation got worse, the prosecution had be send the indictment and the opinion to the Ministry of Justice. These matters were handled in the Referat, the department of Franke, in order to get a uniform picture of the jurisdiction. It was also important to pay attention to the fact that the penalties were uniform in the different districts of the Reich.
If it happened that in individual cases there were considerable mis givings against the legal evaluation or the extent of the penalty, the files were submitted to the Oberreichsanwalt, the Chief Reich Prosecutor, for review as to whether a further means of legal recourse was necessary. The misgivings, however, referred not only to sentences that were too lenient, but also to sentences that were too severe. Only in the latter case it was simpler. One could help by means of a clemency plea. I here have to insert that neither the Minister now I, myself, saw the opinions in cases in regard to the undermining of military strength with the exception of those cases in which the execution of a death sentence which had been issued was pronounced or cases in which the Referent or department chief requested the introduction of a legal recourse. A longer observation of the sentences in the Referat, or department, could then show that a certain district deviated from the generally recognized principles in its sentences, especially from the principles recognized by the Reich Supreme Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Klemm, I think you fully explained the reasons why you desired to have uniformity. Now this particular exhibit indicates that in this particular instance you complained of sentences being too mild. You have explained the reasons which underlay your theory in the matter and I think you have covered it sufficiently. We must avoid such continuous repetition, Mr. Schilf.
DR. SCHILF: Herr Klemm, therefore let us go concretely to the contents of these two letters. How did it happen that these two letters as such were written? I believe it will be necessary to bore the Tribunal with that still because your name is under this letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you are not boring the Tribunal nor is the witness. But we have the substance before us at this moment of these letters and you need not ask the witness what the substance of those letters were. We are here to try the case fairly and we don't want counsel to worry about boring us, but we do want counsel to worry about undue explanations and too long explanations.
Ask your next question.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Please state the practical cause how these letters happened to be written. Due to the decision of the court, you do not have to discuss the contents any more.
A. The method for writing such letters had already been established long before I entered the Ministry of Justice. If cases accumulated in one district, the President of the District Court of Appeals who was concerned received a letter so that in future cases a general just sentencing, as it happened in the entire Reich, would take place.
THE PRESIDENT: Why did you write this particular letter? Just ask him why he wrote the particular letter shown in Exhibit 178.
THE WITNESS: These cases had been collected in the Referat -- in the Department -- and then they were reported to the Minister and the Minister determined whether such a guidance letter was supposed to be written. In these two cases of Stuttgart and Hamburg, Franke and Vollmcr, the Department Chief, reproted to the Minister about the jurisdiction exercised by these District Courts of Appeal and suggested to compile the most extreme cases and to call them to the attention of the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal. The Minister approved of this suggestion and in addition to that determined that I had to sign these letters. That in these letters, the first person singular "I" was always used, is the accepted official style. To that extent I may refer to Exhibit 48, 94, 95, 96, and 99 in which simply Referents and associates also write in the first person singular, although the letter bears the letterhead of the Reich Minister of Justice, and they sign it personally.
DR. SCHILF: I believe we have to interrupt. I believe the Tribunal wants to recess.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until one-thirty this afternoon. May I ask counsel how much longer he anticipates that his direct examina tion of this witness will continue if permitted?
DR. SCHILF: Your Honor, I shall finish during the course of this afternoon -- at least I hope so.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 11 July 1947.)
HERBERT KLEMM - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for Defendant Klemm)
Q. Herr Klemm, in regard to the two guidance letters to Hamburg and Stuttgart, were the judges who pronounced these sentences, and who had aroused the disfavor of Thierack, supposed to be called to account personally, or were measures supposed to be taken against them?
A. That was not supposed to be done in any case. It would have been neither in accordance with the intentions of the Ministry nor was it the meaning of such a guidance. The president of the district court of appeals, Hamburg, who was requested at the end of the guidance letter to speak to the judges in the appropriate manner, that was what it says literally in the letter, could handle it directly; as the official superior, he did not use this letter at all; but within the framework of a community of work within the NS Lawyers League, that is on a purely comradeship basis and not as a superior, he spoke about these matters; and even less could the president of the district court of appeals in Stuttgart issue measures to the individual judges personally, or reproach them, because this letter was expressly addressed to him, at the end it says that "you, Mr. president of the district court of appeal should call direct and special attention to these problems." There is also a circular letter by the Ministry of Justice which is known and which emphasizes again and again that the independence of the judges should not be touched.
Q. But in the Stuttgart case the names of the participating judges were listed. What was the purpose of that?
A. Of the twelve sentences which are mentioned in the Stuttgart letter, nine had been pronounced when different members were sitting in the court. For that very reason the names were listed to show that the issue was not the failure of one individual judge, but that the general jurisdiction of the district court of appeal of Stuttgart in matters of undermining military strength was not in accordance with the wishes of the Reich level and the needs of the time.
Q In that connection the name of the co--defendant Cuhorst is mentioned. Did you know at the time the then President Cuhorst?
A No, his name did not mean anything to me.
Q Did you know that the then senate president Cuhorst was also president of the special court of Stuttgart; and, was the guidance letters supposed to criticize the jurisdiction of the special court at Stuttgart?
A I did not know the jurisdiction of the special court of Stuttgart at all. That the same person was presiding judge of the special court and president of the senate of the district court of appeal was not known to me at the time.
Q I have to discuss two more documents with you which are a result of this context; these are Exhibits 209 and 210. Exhibit 209 is NS485, in Document Book III-K; and Exhibit 210 is NG-489, also in Document Book III-K. These are two sentences pronounced by the special court of appeal, Stuttgart. I would like to ask you whether these two documents refer to cases which were connected with the guidance letters sent to Stuttgart.
A No. This case is from the time which was one and three-quarters of a year before - that is almost two years before that time, and at a time when I was not yet under secretary. Also, these cases were not concerned with undermining of military strength; I did not even know the case.
Q One final question in that context. In the two so-called guidance letters, especially in the one to Stuttgart, mention is made of the fact that an extraordinary objection was supposed to be raised. Do you know anything about whether that was done?
A The sentences were not sent to the Oberreichsanwalt with a request to raise the extraordinary objection, but with the instruction to examine whether it would be worthwhile to raise an extraordinary objection. In neither of those cases, neither in the guidance letter to Hamburg or to Stuttgart, the problem was the changing of prison sentences to death sentences, but the questions were merely prison terms and whether they should be increased, but still remain prison sentences. Thus, the Oberreichsanwalt was not instructed to raise an extraordinary objection. As far as I know at the time, the Oberreichsanwalt in the cases which were sent to him for examination refused to register an extraordinary objection; and, as far as I know, the minister was satisfied with those results of the examination.
Q With that we have concluded the question of the guidance letters. I now come to a document which was also submitted against you. That is Exhibit 494; that is NG-9521; supplement volume of Document Book III-B. This refers to the order for the establishment of civilian courts--martial. The Prosecution asserts that this was an illegal law, and you are made responsible for it. Please explain to the Tribunal -
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number is that?
DR. SCHILF: 494.
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't that an affidavit of Huemmer concerning the Montgelas case?
DR. SCHILF: At the moment I am not able to supply the exhibit; if I may ask your indulgence for a moment, Your Honor.
A The exhibit Huemmer is concerned with sentences of civilian court courts--martial in Nurnberg. The civilian courts-martial -
THE PRESIDENT: I suspect that the exhibit number is wrong; that is my only reason for speaking of it.
DR. SCHILF: Exhibit 494 is the Huemmer affidavit. It concerns the establishment of civilian courts-martials.
A I can state my view of it in a few sentences. The order for this establishment of the civilian courts-martial had become necessary because in several localities near the front civilian courts-martials of an illegal nature had been formed. To that extent I refer to Document Book III-L, page 10. This is the list of reports to the Minister of 10 January, 1945, under Figure 7. there is a case reported in which a Kreisleiter had established civilian courts-martials on his own authority; but there were several of such cases. The Administration of Justice was faced with the situation of either ignoring this illegal situation or to create an institution by which judges and prosecutors would be injected into proceedings in order to examine the proof of guilt carefully. Furthermore, to create a court that could work quickly and was independent of the president of the district court of appeals, or from the Ministry in Berlin which was very far distant; but attention had also to be paid to having the activities limited as brief as possible. The highest state official in the district, the highest official was the Reich Defense Commissar;therefore, he was linked up with this and orders for the creation of civilian courts-martial were brought out in agreement with the Ministry of the Interior, under which the Reich Defense Commissar was working. And the right of approval by the Reich Commissar was introduced as a replacement for the provisions of the penal code of procedure that every death sentence had first to be submitted to the Ministry for a clemency decision; but this civilian courts-martial was also supposed to be restricted in regard to special points of view -only capital offenses were supposed to be tried before it; therefore, only in matters in which a death sentence was possible it could decide. Everything else had to be handed over to the ordinary Administration of Justice; or, it could acquit persons; this was included for practical reasons so that the matters would not have to be tried twice.
The civilian court martials were also not introduced generally; they were only possible in places which were endangered by the enemy, and at that time executive regulations were issued to the effect that in the individual districts, the civil court martials could be established only with the special permission of the Reich Minister of Justice. In a conference which took place with Under--Secretary Kritsinger of the Reich Chancellery, and Under-Secretary Klopfer of the Party Chancellery, and me, I, on order of Thierack, urged especially that judges and prosecutors were included in these civilian court martials, and that happened.
Q The Huemmer affidavit, that is to say, Exhibit 494, mentions a number of cases which were sentenced by the civilian court martial in Nurnberg, among other the case of Count Montgelas; did these cases become known to you when you were Under--Secretary?
A Neither the Count Montgelas case nor the others were known to me at the time.
Q The next subject which I will discuss with you deals with your relationship, as Under-Secretary, to the Party Chancellery. I have to refer back again to the Altmeyer affidavit that is Exhibit 441. We have had to mention it already frequently during your examination; therefore, one is NG-1307, in supplementary volume I, Document Book I. Altmeyer stated in this affidavit that it was his impression you had a very close relationship to Bormann, and in many cases you are alleged to have asked for the decisions of the Party Chancellery; that is, when you were Under-Secretary, if there were pending penal cases. Altmeyer further stated that you frequently stated that you could make a decision in your capacity as Under--Secretary only after you had found out the opinion of the Party Chancellery. What do you have to say to this?
A I have already discussed my relationship with Bormann before. To the Party Chancellery, and especially Group III-C, letters were written frequently, but never in the way which Altmeyer said it was done:
Frequently the divisions came to me to ask me for help. Party Chancellery, Group III-C was informed especially in penal cases against political leaders, so that from the very beginning it could be seen, on the part of the Party Chancellery that no local difficulties would arise between the Party agencies and the Administration of Justice. There were also many cases in which the Party Chancellery had written to us and we had to answer. And, at the beginning of my activities as Under-Secretary, there were even cases which were reported to me and a negative decision was sent to the Party Chancellery in answer to a letter which I, myself, had signed when I was still in the Party Chancellery as Chief of Group III-C and had signed them. Altmeyer's statements can also be disproved by the list of schedules of reports in Document Book III-L. There are altogether ten cases which concern letters to the Party Chancellery; four or five of them concern only penal cases regarding political leaders in which the Party Chancellery is informed about it so that, on its part, it can take the necessary Steps. For the rest, they are concerned with excessives of political leaders who were reprimanded or with trials under the law against malicious acts. And, in this matter we had to get in touch with the Party Chancellery because of the regulations. One could not talk at all about asking the Party Chancellery for decisions.
Q In order to shorten the submission of evidence, we have to inform the Tribunal about the places in Exhibit 242, in which the ten cases you mentioned are contained. Can you briefly complete this by stating the page numbers?
A It is sheet 77, that is pages 87 and 88 in the English; cases 11 and 18 pages 89 and 90 in the English; No. 24 and 30, pages 103 and 104; No. 8, 12, 15, and 18; and sheet 154, 155; No. 3 and No. 10.
Q In addition to the places which you cited, it is apparent that these were the cases which you have mentioned?
A. Yes, those which I outlined briefly.
Q I have to put another question to you, that a further affidavit be submitted, that is the Franke affidavit, Exhibit 515. NO-1474, Book III-A, the supplementary volume. Franke stated in his affidavit that at the time of your activities as Under-Secretary the Ministry of Justice, "ausnuetzen", made use, that is the term he used of your good relationship to the Party Chancellery; please comment on this?
A In all cases where difficulties with the Party were threatening, the Referents and Department Chiefs came to me because I knew the Party Chancellery; that was in personnel matters, in penal cases, and in civil cases, especially in those three fields. As far as possible I also helped in such cases, that is not by writing official letters but personal letters, and I wrote them personally to an individual in the Party Chancellery. In that way we frequently succeeded in avoiding difficulties end to preserve the interest of the administration of justice. To that extent, the expression "ausnuetzen" , to make use of, which Franke used, is correct.
Q But your relationship to the Party Chancellery could also have its disadvantages, namely, when the Party Chancellery would recognize that you did not take care of the interest of the Party well enough; did such cases occur?
A No, such cases did not occur. The individuals in the Party Chancellery knew me; after all, Division III with whom we had to deal, and especially the people in Group III-C whose superior I had been. It was even so that, especially because I had been in the Party Chancellery before and the people knew of me, that I took case of the interest of the administration of justice. I could write to them or speak to them much more frequently and openly than others. I can remember some few cases in which I wrote in a form which would have been impossible officially. I became so severe in one case, it was the incorporation of the members of the Ministry of Justice into the Volkssturm.
In another case, we were concerned with the elimination of having an expert in the Ministry of Justice declared essential. A Gau Leadership had caused that he was no longer declared essential on its own authority, and the third case was concerned with the matter in Vienna, in which the Party had interfered in the Rent Court.
Q The Prosecution believes that with Exhibit 44, that is NG-416, in Document Book I-B, they pan prove the opposite to you, the opposite of which you stated just now. This concerns correspondence which you, as Under-Secretary, carried on with the Party Chancellery, that is about political penal cases of the Wehrmacht. Would you please comment on this, too?
A The correspondence just shows that the legal group III-C, was in accordance with the efforts of the Ministry of Justice. Thierack had written to Bormenn before, in his capacity as Secretary to the Fuehrer, with the aim that all of the defendants who resulted from the affair of 20 July, should be indicted only before the People's Court. The main reason was that we wanted to avoid that this trial should be handled before a Reich Military Court for military persons, and before the People's Court for civilians.